physica

it's right below the many thanks comment

Not to be cyclic for the hell of it but to make a point. When these diseases are cured we will be complaining about the next round of diseases that we can't cure and make us mortal.

I need some help being pointed in the right direction as each part of the question follows on to the next. I think I understand double integration. For this I have identified that the fin has vertices of: (1,1), (2,0), (5.9) the next step is where I am having difficulty. I do a double integration using Y first in order to keep it simple. So i integrate from: y=(2-x)^2 to y=2-(y)^1/2 I then integrate from: x=1 to x=5 I don't know if this is correct or if I'm having problems with finding the center of mass because the center of mass is way outside the fin. Am I having trouble with finding the center of maths or have I got the double integration wrong? If I have the double integration wrong what should I integrate first? Many thanks

Tar I didn't say you were arguing for intelligent design. Please stop using cheap tactics to rubbish my name. You've brought our previous debate onto this thread, you've made assumptions about me giving you negative rep all the time (this was wrong) you attack me without going into any specifics and you label me a troll and you bring your grievances of losing a previous debate (off topic). Stating that I cannot redeem myself in your eyes and that you want to defeat me because I'm a troll. Not very open minded, I suggest you take a step back and reflect on your actions as your emotions are clearly getting the better of you, I remember the first reply you ever sent to me included statements like taking sides. This reminds me of a petulant child. Actually look at the definition of troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) The definition of troll is someone who insights argument by posting inflammatory off topic posts. Now lets look at the history of this thread. I ask you to state a case of cleverness. You do so but then immediately after you post an inflammatory post speculating about my giving neg rep even though I didn't. Even when a mod states that this is wrong you say you don't care. Then I try and bring the topic back pointing out that I'm sold on your point of cleverness, to avoid derailing if anyone is interested they can read the other topic, I believe I completely bossed on the lingual theory of everything but I do make the point that people should read it and judge for themselves. You then rant about my character on this thread again (again off topic). If you look back on this thread my posts about the lingual theory of everything is a response to you rubbishing my name on this thread because you can't handle being held to account when you waffle, use cheap tactics (which is like in every post) and side step. See the funny thing Tar is that by definition you're the troll here hahahahah. Don't worry son when you develop wisdom above a child you'll look back at this and thank me for this education. Now lets get back on topic and stop whining when you lose a previous debate. If you still have issues with that debate post them on that debate. Mike as opposed to previous debates I like your approach. Looking at Entropy I suggest that this is a good example probabilities dished out by the universe. Entropy is an interesting perspective here but could you elaborate. statistical thermodynamics makes the point that it is more likely that a system will become more disordered. I'm guessing that this is what you mean by winding down. What do you mean by winding up. If this is means that the system is becoming more ordered this is very statistically unlikely.

.... how is this post even linked to your previous post??

You brought the previous thread into this one. Now this thread is at risk of being high jacked. In order to prevent this happening anyone who’s interested in Mike’s, mine and Tar’s discussion on Zeno’s paradox please go to a lingual theory of everything page 26 post 520 onwards (last post on page 26). Tar and Mike receive such a bossing of a lifetime they constantly resort to every cheap tactic in the book and I point them out along the way. Of course they don’t contest them because deep down they know they are getting rinsed. I recommend it, it’s a real treat for the whole family, go there and make up your own mind so we can get back on topic here. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72758-a-lingual-theory-of-everything/page-26 As for the cleverness I'm sold of course there's cleverness in nature. However, I don't think the point of the thread. Correct if I'm wrong because my grasp on this thread isn't as strong. Is this thread more about intelligence in the design or process of nature? (omitting the decision of a god)

I used to be socialist until I worked in the NHS emergency medicine after university. In theory socialism is great, who wouldn’t want to help the poor at the expense of the rich? I was a member of the socialist party and even got published against NHS privatisation. This all changed when I actually worked for the NHS. Corruption is rife. Now there’s unfairness in capitalism. However, you have a choice of what product to buy and who to give your money to. With government schemes they take the money off you via taxes and spend it how they want. If you’re poor you won’t get equal treatment in the NHS compared to a rich person. Doctors use NHS resources for their private work. If you’re in purchasing you’ll buy computers for a higher price than on the high street but get a backhand in return, who cares it’s government money they say. They put cleaners and porters on zero hour contracts. They right up joke post grad degrees and mass sell them to the NHS. My friend did masters in medical research at Imperial (5th in the world at the time) and for his stats they showed him how to use excel. His degree was a complete joke and he couldn’t use it outside the NHS. In my hospital the cardiology consultants got caught because they pushed for funding for an outpatient cardio clinic but they still saw their patients in the hospital. They were double charging for their patients. If you double charged a patient privately they would know about it but because it was NHS they got away with it for years. When Milton Freedman crunched the numbers behind government funding in universities in America he realised that there were so many upper middle class kids going to university and so little working class kids that the upper middle class were getting the money back they paid by taxes but the working class weren’t. Therefore the working class were paying for the upper middle class’s university education via taxes. Again government funding for universities is a nice idea but it does the opposite of what it’s supposed to do. In my experience, recent economic findings and history (Russia) as have prime examples of how socialism benefits a few people by forcing the rest to part with their money. The thing that rubs salt in the wound is that they do it under the guise that it’s government so they are doing it to help the majority of the people.

can the mods please clarify to tar that I didn't give a negative rep to him on post 254 I was busy revising for exams yesterday. Stop making assumptions on my character, it derails the conversation and just gives the debate a childish tone. Tar I appreciate that your rep is fairly good. However, this doesn't mean you are invincible, others may also read what you say and dislike it. It's actually you that doesn't address the points made but again we are digressing into childish talk. I believe you got negative rep from someone (I don't know who) in post 254 because of the actual post, looking at it I think it's justified. You use 478 words to give a vague message. It is well known that there is skill in delivering a message consistently and concisely. Judges sometimes apologise for not having enough time to write a shorter judicial opinion. Anyone who wants an example of this see the way I concisely hold someone's feet to the fire with zeno's paradox in the lingual theory of everything. You'll see that they never address it. It is also general good practice for paragraphs and sentences to make sense by themselves. We always need all the writing to get the big picture but each sentence needs to make sense in order for the reader to follow your train of thought as they are not mind readers. It has to be noted that your post 254 was a reply to making a case for cleverness in nature. This adds nothing. There is no point for this sentence to be written. The whole debate is about whether there's cleverness or not. You then waste another 182 words stating that if there is a single piece of evidence of cleverness in nature then we can't say that there is not cleverness in nature. This is a valid assumption, I'm actually on board with what you're saying or the first 246 words. However, there is a lot of waffle as 246 of your words could be summed up in 23 words without losing any nuances. You then use another 232 words making the point that cleverness is needed in order to judge. Therefore there is evidence of cleverness. It's a bit depressing that we read through 478 words making a case for cleverness and we don't even see a definition of cleverness in it. Also I think it's a real cheap shot to just label me as a troll and constantly make assumptions on my character. I take a long time over these posts, I sit down crunch numbers, copy your replies onto word and go through them section by section. Anyone who interested in an example of this, go to the last pages of the lingual theory of everything. I receive 9 replies totaling to 3,677 words and my point about Zeno's paradox pointing out that the theory of everything just didn't work wasn't addressed, instead loads of side stepping, character assumptions and waffle Just like what you've seen here. Tar have some compassion for other readers, how must they feel when they take time to structure a reply and in return they have to read through a load of waffle that vaguely mentions what people are talking about. I'm sorry that this debate has taken a childish tone but when someone whines about you because they can't handle their waffle being criticised I feel that I have to set the record straight. As for this debate, set forward a more concise case that actually has a definition of cleverness in it. You notice that I haven't stated my position on this topic yet I'm waiting to be convinced by either side. Don't take my replies personally (notice it's you who is constantly assuming character traits and not addressing specific points). If you take what I say on board you will develop your debating style from outright amateur/child to something that won't frustrate and irritate the average reader.

Mike you seriously need to read more. Let’s look at this premise. Instead of the works of Shakespeare we will just look at one sentence: "to be or not to be that is the question". Let's ignore capital letters and punctuation but include the spaces. we have 39 independent outcomes for each letter for 27 values. If we have a billion monkeys each typing 39 symbols every 10 seconds for the entire age of the universe (15, billion years, notice no breaks). The probability of the sentence being typed would be (1/27)^39=1.5*10^-56 so a year contains: 365*24*60*60=3*10^7 seconds thus each monkey can make 3*10^6 attempts each year the total number of attempts of all the billion monkeys throughout the entire age of the universe would be: 3*10^6*10^9*1.5*10^10=4.5*10^25 This is far too short of the number to be a reasonable chance of success. Let’s clarify, It’s insanely unlikely (a 0.00000000000000000000000000000003% chance) for one billion monkeys to type “to be or not to be that is the question” even if they ignored punctuation and typed non-stop for the whole life time of the universe. It’s not to say that it will never happen but it is so unlikely for one sentence to be typed during the entire universe’s life time. Using this to say this: is a complete joke. This is Mike smith's pub talk at its finest. Read up on basic probability before formulating theories based on probability. The only way be can understand the universe at this moment in time is based on probability. Can you actually be clearer on what you mean by these statements I've quoted? They are so vague they offer no insight into anything.

completely agree. He's not defending the theory therefore he doesn't have to make a case until yours is put forwards hahaha. Make a structured case as opposed to just waffle. If you do not make a concrete case then this so called theory cannot be accepted. This is a basic premise of science. How can he make a case on your case if you haven't put forward a case. The only case that Tar's comment puts forward is that there certainly isn't cleverness everywhere in the universe.

again more side stepping and not a dressing the issue. It's been a bit of a trek but I'm glad we're concluded that the theory is majorly flawed and doesn't help understand a whole range of properties of the universe. Looks like I'm having to repeat myself again. Zeno's paradox is a well established paradox archived in the Stanford annuals of philosophy and has been solved using calculus by a number of mathematical philosophers. It's an age old paradox. Another classic cheap tactic for the losing side. Berate well established concepts without going into specifics. Again not addressing any of the points I've raised. So your theory didn't match up to BC standards of logic, don't worry about it. Better luck next time. This is a science forum, if you look back you will realize that I only criticize cheap by-standing tactics, failures to address issues raised and the major flaw in the theory itself. I've made no personal attacks. Don't take this bossing personally.

So it is concluded that this theory fails to aid the understanding of Zeno's paradox of a faster object overtaking a slower one. I keep having to repeat myself because you keep side stepping the issue. Show me a quote in your other replies to me that address the issue that your theory fails to give direction in a paradox that in a lingual sense states that it is impossible to a faster moving object to overtake a slower moving one and the mathematical sense states that is is possible for a faster moving object to overtake a slower moving one. Again you haven't replied directly about Zeno's paradox and how your theory fails to aid in the understanding. It has to be noted for readers that Zeno's paradox is a well established paradox archived in the Stanford annuals of philosophy and has been solved using calculus by a number of mathematical philosophers, it is also used as an introduction to many advanced mechanics subjects and is not my pet. This type of behavior is also displayed in children who don't want to admit they're wrong. So I think it's safe to conclude that this theory cannot address Zeno's paradox, thus it can't logically aid understanding in how a faster moving object overtakes a slower moving one, thus it miserably fails in a whole range concepts in the universe. So this theory is a joke, completely useless and best described as pub talk.

I wonder if you've ever worked in medical research or practice. These would all be useful but they are all easier said than done. Your statements are very vague. What experience do you have? What education do you have? What part of development are you looking at? Medical innovation is very vast. Is an entire discipline to get already known devices and make them useful in everyday clinical practice. The projects you're describing need innovators in mathematical biology and biochem, expertise input from bio-medical engineers and computer programmers and consultation with medical doctors and nurses in order to get them through the clinical trials with ethical and practical trials from a registered lab and testing facility. If you have these professionals, facilities and a ton of money at your fingertips I suggest pick which ever one you like. If you don't then see what funded projects are available under the post grad section of hospitals.

we've got two people just waffling adding nothing. Tar you seem to be tangential again. My whole point is based on the fact that sometimes logic says one thing and reality say another, this is the basis of my argument. This so called lingual theory of everything fails to give direction in these matters thus failing miserably. As for mike, again you're side stepping. We are not talking about electromagnetism. My point that Zeno's paradox concludes that this theory is a complete joke and cannot logically help someone understand a faster object over taking a slower moving one. please address the point. You can tell when the other side is losing miserably. They try anything not to address the point that will put the final nail in their coffin. We have seen it here, by replying to points with tangential statements that have some vague word association combined with waffle. It also has to be noted that the corrections I've made to their previous posts have just been left and they have replied with just more waffle. Take note people these are classic tactics for people who do not want to admit they have failed. I understand your attempt to glaze over my point about Zeno's paradox as it clearly shows that this "theory" fails to explain paradoxes conceived in BC times. However, we can't just glaze over points that make us uncomfortable. Please show a quote from your theory that helps someone understand Zeno's paradox: 1.1: A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based The activity is understanding stuff. Looking at Zeno's paradox: Achilles and the tortoise, we can see that different approaches come up with different results stating that it is impossible and possible for Achilles to overtake the tortoise. Calculus (the theory of rates of change) logically shows me why a faster moving object can overtake a slower moving one. Now instead of going on about different languages quote me a part of the 3 sentences of this so called theory that helps me understand Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise because with no direction it is logically both impossible and possible. 1.2: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action It can't give any direction but again show me a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" that justifies a course of action in understanding Zeno's paradox. 1.3 Mathematics A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject I see no mathematical proofs in this "theory" So all you have to do is find a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" of everything that satisfies one of the three definitions of theory in relation to Zeno's paradox. I has to be noted that I'm having to repeat myself again and again because it hasn't been addressed So is it concluded that this theory is useless and doesn't even aid in the understanding of BC problems in logic? Or can you show me how this theory aids someone in understanding zeno's paradox?

once again it hasn't been addressed. There's a lot of waffle with some words vaguely associated with what I'm trying to point out but again there is side stepping. This isn't necessary, just waffle, if you look back at what I said I pointed out that I think there has to be years of studying, this is why I am not spouting my own original thoughts, said nothing about your credentials. Refrain from using cheap straw man arguments in the future. This waffle adds nothing either. You have side stepped and started focusing on Newton's laws, this is not the focus. If we look at Achilles overtaking a tortoise with just logical statements, the clarification, what constitutes overtaking makes the point that it is impossible for Achilles to overtake the tortoise. If we use a mathematical approach (calculus) it is logical. However, lets say someone wants to understand the concept of a faster object overtaking a slower moving one but the person has never seen this happen. So how does he, using your theory understand how this works, as logical statements say it's impossible yet the maths says it is. Your theory gives nothing. Therefore it fails. Again another side step. What you have to address here is the fact that your theory gives no direction. It doesn't tell the person wanting to understand whether to believe the logical statements or the maths, or to believe that it is impossible and possible at the same time. this is completely false. Mathematical philosophy flies straight in the face of this statement. Although maths can give specific predictions and interpretations the concepts of maths unlocks new ways of thinking and new approaches to concepts. I accept your apology as Zeno's paradox explores the logic of a faster object overtaking a slower moving one. This happens all over the universe. It's not whether Zeno's paradox can cope with your theory, it's whether your theory can cope with Zeno's paradox. In conclusion just more side step hidden behind waffle. My point has still not been addressed whilst I wade though tangential points and straw man arguments. You can tell when the other side is losing miserably. They try anything not to address the point that will put the final nail in their coffin. We have seen it here, by replying to points with tangential statements that have some vague word association combined with waffle. And by making points about things I didn't say. Take note people these are classic tactics for people who do not want to admit they have failed. As a side note this tone is abrasive. If you look at my other posts on other threads they aren't as much. However, when people start dancing round the subject with vague tangential replies and speculations about your character and your motives as opposed to answering the points you have to be abrasive otherwise you'll get nowhere. So is it concluded that this theory is useless and doesn't even aid in the understanding of BC problems in logic? Or can you show me how this theory aids someone in understanding zeno's paradox?

Yet again we see more side stepping. It's getting abrasive because the other side is not actually replying. As for the Stanford quote you can speculate all you want about my motives, however, this is another side stepping issue. Standford is a reputable university. The link is not saying that Mike's theory is wrong, it doesn't even mention you so I don't know how it would be employed to intimidate you. It's used in order show that I'm not making this Zeno's paradox up and it is a widely accepted paradox. I've latched onto this paradox as it has shown that this theory is useless. I keep having to repeat it as no one is directly addressing it. This discussion isn't about impressing you. I am of the belief that someone has to study many years in a particular field in order to come up with something original that isn't useless. This is why I'm not spouting my own original thoughts. This is a little rich considering that you haven't directly addressed the point that I have made at all. Now you've sidestepped, made your Ad hominem attack and pointed out I'm a bad person lets get back to the issue. Your theory fails to aid anyone understand a well established, well known paradox that was conceived in BC times that has now been proved logical by calculus. I understand your attempt to glaze over my point about Zeno's paradox as it clearly shows that this "theory" fails to explain paradoxes conceived in BC times. However, we can't just glaze over points that make us uncomfortable. Please show a quote from your theory that helps someone understand Zeno's paradox: 1.1: A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based The activity is understanding stuff. Looking at Zeno's paradox: Achilles and the tortoise, we can see that different approaches come up with different results stating that it is impossible and possible for Achilles to overtake the tortoise. Calculus (the theory of rates of change) logically shows me why a faster moving object can overtake a slower moving one. Now instead of going on about different languages quote me a part of the 3 sentences of this so called theory that helps me understand Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise because with no direction it is logically both impossible and possible. 1.2: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action It can't give any direction but again show me a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" that justifies a course of action in understanding Zeno's paradox. 1.3 Mathematics A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject I see no mathematical proofs in this "theory" So all you have to do is find a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" of everything that satisfies one of the three definitions of theory in relation to Zeno's paradox. You can tell when the other side is losing miserably. They try anything not to address the point that will put the final nail in their coffin. We have seen it here, by dismissing a well known and accepted paradox on the grounds that they don't understand it, and completely dedicating a reply on the basis of my character with speculations on why I'm quoting and sticking with concepts. Take note people these are classic tactics for people who do not want to admit they have failed. So is it concluded that this theory is useless and doesn't even aid in the understanding of BC problems in logic? Or can you show me how this theory aids someone in understanding zeno's paradox?

This reply is beyond pathetic. Zeno's paradox is well known, many philosophers and mathematical philosophers agree that it is a paradox and that calculus makes it logical. This is in the annuals of philosophy in Stanford University and widely accepted. Just saying you don't see it and putting it down as a point is beyond reasonable debate. I'm usually not this blunt but your post is a waste of time. If you don't understand something go and read up on it. Your post wastes everyone's time, adds nothing to the debate and disjoints the conversation. Thank god not everyone has your view on Zeno's paradox. Many people have accepted this paradox and it has had big implications on modern physics and understanding the world. There have been essential contributions starting from the calculus of Newton and Leibniz and ending at the beginning of the twentieth century with the mathematical advances of Cauchy, Weierstrass, Dedekind, Cantor, Einstein, and Lebesque. Philosophically, the single greatest contribution was to replace a reliance on what humans can imagine with a reliance on creating logically consistent mathematical concepts that can promote quantitative science. I know it's hard to admit when you've lost a debate but next time when you don't know about something just don't post, or spend some time educating yourself, you may learn something (see link below). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/ As for Mike, I understand your attempt to glaze over my point about Zeno's paradox as it clearly shows that this "theory" is a complete joke that fails to explain paradoxes conceived in BC times. However, we can't just glaze over points that make us uncomfortable. Please show a quote from your theory that helps someone understand Zeno's paradox: 1.1: A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based The activity is understanding stuff. Looking at Zeno's paradox: Achilles and the tortoise, we can see that different approaches come up with different results stating that it is impossible and possible for Achilles to overtake the tortoise. Calculus (the theory of rates of change) logically shows me why a faster moving object can overtake a slower moving one. Now instead of going on about different languages quote me a part of the 3 sentences of this so called theory that helps me understand Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise because with no direction it is logically both impossible and possible. 1.2: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action It can't give any direction but again show me a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" that justifies a course of action in understanding Zeno's paradox. 1.3 Mathematics A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject I see no mathematical proofs in this "theory" So all you have to do is find a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" of everything that satisfies one of the three definitions of theory in relation to Zeno's paradox.

I believe it is worth noting for the tone of this discussion that this paradox was not cooked up by me. This is an age old paradox that has been at the subject of many philosophical writings and analysis for 100s of years. It was then proved logical by calculus, something mathematical philosophers are very proud of. Now in this discussion I am not taking a preference to avoid tangential discussion. Again you have misunderstood what I've said and you are side stepping the issue. So I'm going to lay out more of a structure so we can be more concise and make it easier for you to reply. Now lets look at the oxford English dictionary definition of theory: 1.1: A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based The activity is understanding stuff. Looking at Zeno's paradox: Achilles and the tortoise, we can see that different approaches come up with different results stating that it is impossible and possible for Achilles to overtake the tortoise. Calculus (the theory of rates of change) logically shows me why a faster moving object can overtake a slower moving one. Now instead of going on about different languages quote me a part of the 3 sentences of this so called theory that helps me understand Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise because with no direction it is logically both impossible and possible. 1.2: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action It can't give any direction but again show me a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" that justifies a course of action in understanding Zeno's paradox. 1.3 Mathematics A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject I see no mathematical proofs in this "theory" So all you have to do is find a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" of everything that satisfies one of the three definitions of theory in relation to Zeno's paradox. In conclusion this so called theory is a complete joke. It fails miserably when applied to paradoxes identified in BC times!!!! In fact it's being generous labeling it as pub talk.

I join them to discuss things. This may seem simple but it's rare to truly discuss things with people other than my close friends in my daily life. My mother, an enthusiastic physics teacher told me from an early age that most people don't actually want to discuss, they just want to talk for the sake of talking. She told me that when she was at university one student was saying: why is the jam in doughnuts hot? She explained to them about heat conduction and they looked at her blankly. She then realized that the student didn't really want to know they just wanted something to say. I've had similar experiences of getting blank stares after explaining how a fridge works, or why the British drive on the left side of the road, or the fact that the first person to legally own a slave for the rest of their lives even though they didn't commit a crime in the USA was a black guy. These forums have people who have gone out of their way to have a discussion as opposed to people just talking for the sake of someone being in the same room as them.

I think you need to broaden your concept of primitive healthcare and look at the bigger picture. Practicalities play a big role. I work in A and E (ER) and our hospital in London has one of the best survival rates for stroke in the UK. This isn't because we know something special about strokes that we're not telling anyone else, it's because we have a call ahead of time before they come in and we have a dedicated stroke team with two functional and maned CT head scanners on standby. A bleed or a clot in the brain has the same symptoms, the sooner we scan them the sooner we know and the sooner we can treat. Other hospitals don't do so well because they don't have this set up. I don't know why this could be down to funds etc. Healthcare quality is not a scientific issue but more of a political issue, this is why politicians get heavily involved in it. The proof is in the pudding, the differences in healthcare from country to country differs far more than the understanding of the body from country to country. For cancer there has been great advances, photodynamic therapy is were they inject a light sensitive drug, it gets absorbed by the cancer cells and then you hit the cancer cells with a certain light frequency, this causes a chemical reaction that destroys the cells. The reality isn't a pitch perfect as my simple explanation but there are some promising case studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673101 A famous case was Aine Shaw, she had inoperable lung cancer. She had the cancer removed by photodynamic therapy in a couple of out patient sessions and there has been no regrowth. The problem now is pushing it through the regulation, buying these machines, training the right amount of people, regulating it, coming up with standardized treatment protocols for clinicians to follow (we are certainly not individual thinkers, medical and nursing school is all about memorizing physiology and practical protocols, graduation shows that you've memorized enough not to be too dangerous) and setting up a service will take years. As I tell my students and my patients, healthcare is all practicalities and politics. As for the concept of primitive it is a subjective one but we have to take into account the Easterlin paradox. The Easterlin paradox makes the point that an increase in wealth will momentarily increase happiness but then the subject will become used to this increase and treat it as standard thus the increase in wealth doesn't improve overall happiness. The same can be said for medicine. Many of my patients have complained because they have to wait 2 hours for the results of the bloods i've just taken. Having a heart attack, stroke or cancer 5 years ago would be fairly different to having it now. Personally I think healthcare is advancing but it could be more effective. The situation is complex and I do not claim to have all the answers but one thing I am confident about is that clinicians should get out of scientific bio-medical research and focus of improving their team, delivery of their service and effectiveness of the structure of their service.

I think what's needed in this discussion is a dose of clinical experience. Whilst I am now part-time as I'm studying physics I must say there are some misconceptions here. There is a rise in cancer deaths but this is because we have to die of something. There has been many advancements in the treatment of heart disease with the PCI and statins. Because of this people are surviving their heart attacks and live a bit longer to get cancer. I find that some people fail to look back at what we have cured. However, medical stagnation is a valid concern is a genuine concern. John Cuthber points out that the medical journals are growing however, UCL professors and others have pointed out that there is now a lot of trash published in the medical journals nowadays. In the UK medical doctors get extra points on their clinical rotation applications if they have a publication. The quality of publication doesn't matter they just get a few extra points and maybe the clinical rotation they want. Because of this I have lost count of how many students and junior doctors I've seen writing absolute rubbish just to get published. They openly admit they don't care they just want the points. The other concept that has to be taken into account is the nature of the science. In physics when cold fusion was announced it was disproved by scientists within 24 hours because you can simply rerun the experiment. It's harder and more expensive in medical research as you have to get a load of patients, go through ethics and then do follow up clinics. It can take years and cost loads. Because of this you can get complete morons bumbling through medical research. There was a team that asked for my help. It was a medical professor and 3 medical doctors. They had phds and multiple publications. They measured the effects of two drugs on blood pressure when undergoing endoscopy. They calculated the means for their conclusion. One reading was off skewing the results so I did a distribution showing the opposite of their conclusion. They were very confused and sent me emails like: does it have to be this complex? Another paper our department produced was that if a doctor or nurse witnessed a patient going into cardiac arrest of a ward the patient would have a better chance of survival than if that patient was found after going into cardiac arrest. The majority of medical advancements you'll see now is in medical engineering. This could be that they just have a lot of catch up because it's fairly new. However, the extremely low standards that can slip though the net in medical academia cannot be ignored, they are a real problem. Overall there is advancements in medical research, however, it could be a lot more efficient. The cost to outcome ratio in medical research is terrible.

What people don't take into account is that medicine is a practical trade. Whist science is the foundation of medicine very little science is considered on the daily practice of medicine. Your average medical consultant wont be able to comprehend the probability of a dice role. This is what pushed me to leave and study physics. In my clinical experience it's certain practicalities that effect the outcomes in medicine. Look at the list you've given here. It's hard to cut these out. let's say you have a tumour on one kidney or one breast, you can simply cut out that kidney or remove the breast and replace it with a fake one from plastics, the patient will survive. Removing the brain isn't a practice treatment. Another big thing is politics. Detection is important. detect it before it's spread and you've got a good chance. Certain medical organisations get on their high horse and pressure government. A good example was breast cancer. Medical associations with the backing of the feminist movement pushed for routine screening for women over a certain age. Sometimes a celebrity will get cancer of a sort and act as if the whole world revolves around this particular type of cancer. it's all practicalities and politics.

There's more to it than the ability of the science. politics and regulation play a major role. I was in clinical medicine but now only work part-time because I'm studying physics. I believe that biology is dwindling in it's ability to keep up with the other sciences but it doesn't mean it will die out. Professions are also at the whim of politics and public understanding. If you want a prime example of this go into and NHS hospital. The medics at Imperial College London are very heavily funded and manage to flush huge grants down the toilet. I've worked with medical professors who just calculate the mean and get confused when you talk about distribution. Fail to understand the most basic concepts of probability even though all medical research is based on it and fail to understand mechanisms. It's because medicine is a memory game. However, because the NHS funds it, it blindly throws money at it. Because of this universities knock up ramshackle post-grads just to mass sell them to the government. One of my friends did a masters in clinical research at Imperial (ranked 5th in the world at the time) and his stats module was how to use excel. Also the abuse of government regulation can keep these professions well funded. The general member of the public highly values bio based degrees because they can see the direct benefit even if it's not the most effective. Many people have told me that I'm silly for studying physics as it's useless to society. Even your average nurse struggles to see how physics improves medicine. Many doctors and nurses have said that all I can do with a physics degree is teach physics, nothing else. Thus charity runs and dinners are held in their name by the public. Because of the funds phds are offered to medical students before they've even graduated. Unfortunately image image image gets the funding and brings in the money.

The warrior is something inside human perception. No I haven't. I haven't even raised the question of whether math and logic exist without us Exactly I agree with you and this is my main point. I continue to stand by the notion that a warrior can overtake tortoise and this is why this "theory" fails so miserably. It hasn't given direction for which approach to take on the warrior overtaking the tortoise. It fails when you apply it to the 3 statements of the "theory" so your response is go on your observation. But then lets apply this theory to something else be observe on a daily basis, probability. This is where reality is very counter intuitive, you can't just say go on everyday observation. Although these BC paradoxes have been solved with modern logic are still taught because they are the foundation of logic and reason. If a theory doesn't give direction to these BC paradoxes it is a sign that the theory is inconsistent and pretty much useless. Now your last reply is fairly messy and didn't really address anything. You should be clearer and more to the point. Now give me a concise answer to this. I know it's very tempting when you're scrambling for things to say to start talking about tangential issues. what is your solution to the fact that the "theory" fails to give direction in the warrior overtaking the tortoise paradox? As it stands right now the application of this "theory" states that it is possible using post calculus math, impossible using just logical statements, and possible relying on everyday observation. The all know that that it's possible, the major flaw in this "theory" is that it fails to give direction. It doesn't state that maths trumps all, it doesn't say that everyday observation trumps all and it doesn't say that logical statements trump all. This is a screaming sign that it's pub talk. The three statements in this "theory" are as vague as a drunk stranger giving me life advice in a pub.

I can tell you with great confidence that you have misunderstood the post. I know and many others also knew that a warrior could overtake a tortoise. This is why it's a famous example taught in most mathematical philosophy courses. Nowhere I stated that a warrior overtaking a tortoise is counterintuitive. Zeno's paradox illustrates the importance of the development of logic. If you can't describe something logically that you can see then theres room for development. Zeno was right because calculus was developed which logically described the problem and it is very useful in mechanics. I picked the warrior example because it is a famous ancient problem that nobody will waste time on debating. Well at least I was under the impression that no one would waste time chewing over whether a warrior could overtake a tortoise or not. The whole point of the post is that a theory clarifies, explains or predicts something. His "theory" fails to do this on all three accounts. It is actually so backwards that it even fails to logically clarify a paradox identified before christ. A theory has to be logically consistent, not just on the areas you like, that's called making it up as you go along. considering that the "theory" fails on all three accounts means it's nothing more than pub talk. As for the other half of your reply, I don't claim to know the answer behind everything. But that doesn't mean that his pub talk can be called a theory. As for liking him because he's a nice guy and he does nice drawings..... again this doesn't mean that his pub talk is a theory. There is no teams, you should be looking at the arguments. This is a science forum, not a high school popularity contest. If you disagree with the way in which the "theory" fails of all three accounts be specific and I will address them. Right now I challenge anyone to show he how his theory clarifies, describes or explains zeno's paradox. I have shown you why it fails miserably. He is the one making the claim that this is a theory of EVERYTHING. Therefore he has to prove how his theory clarifies zeno's paradox, thus logically stating that an object can overtake a slower moving one. Let's lay it out concisely. If we use simple observation the warrior will overtake the tortoise if we use calculus, the warrior will overtake the tortoise if use logical statements that clarify what it means to overtake something then it is impossible for the warrior to overtake the tortoise Now we know what will happen, but his "theory doesn't clarify which approach. Therefore according to his theory of EVERYTHING it is impossible and possible for the warrior to overtake the tortoise. This simple example is used because when you start applying it to counterintuitive situations it will only get messy.